Kate, thank you very much for posting that extremely interesting read.

A-theism is just as much a faith as theism? Get real. Atheism is skepticism pure and simple--do not believe in supernatural entities until presented with sufficient evidence. Do not believe is supernatural entities that are posited so as to be unfalsifiable.

Hasn't anyone heard of St Albert the Great?

Sheesh.

Known as Albert the Great; scientist, philosopher, and theologian, born c. 1206; died at Cologne, 15 November 1280. He is called "the Great", and "Doctor Universalis" (Universal Doctor), in recognition of his extraordinary genius and extensive knowledge, for he was proficient in every branch of learning cultivated in his day, and surpassed all his contemporaries, except perhaps Roger Bacon (1214-94), in the knowledge of nature. Ulrich Engelbert, a contemporary, calls him the wonder and the miracle of his age: "Vir in omni scientia adeo divinus, ut nostri temporis stupor et miraculum congrue vocari possit" (De summo bono, tr. III, iv).

"The great difference, then, is that religion demands belief, while science requires disbelief. There is a great variety of faiths. Atheism is just as much a faith as theism."

Evos, as well as enviros and atheos, take note.

Hume and Popper, my favorite philosophers. Unfortunately, Popper was overshadowed by Wittgenstein, the Great Man, and Kuhn, the cheerleader.

"Atheism is just as much a faith as theism"

Agreed, there is nothing so annoying as a devout atheist; they're incapable of seeing their blind faith. Worse yet is the pseudo-sophistication they project, kind of a mellifluous ignorance.
Pretty sure I'll be stuck in agnosticism for the rest of my life, barring any divine visitations or amazing scientific observations.

Atheism is a religion,communism is a religion and muslim is a religion.The one thing in common that they have is an absolute intolerance with other beliefs.

Thus have I heard... The Buddha said "he who says 'this alone is true, all else is false' is a dogmatist and will fall into disputuation." Disputation is not profitable and must be avoided.

Dean Spencer - are you Santa Claus "agnostic" too? I cannot prove there is no supernatural entity Santa Claus who happens to employ cloaking devices. But because I ascribe to scientific scepticism, I do not believe there is such an entity, even though I cannot prove conconclusively Santa Claus does not exist. Ditto other gods.

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

Thank you, Mr.Huxley. "Blind faith the one unpardonable sin".

Yes.

Science is not consensus and consensus is not science.

We have only a very few scientific "laws" like Newton's laws of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. Einstein's theory of relativity is still a theory. Evolution is still Darwin's theory. Global warming is a theory that may or may not be observed as happening now. These things are not settled.

Even the laws of gravity and thermodynamics break down at the quantum level, preventing us from having a grand unified theory describing everything in the universe.

Thanks, Kate, for referencing Mr. Brignell's excellent essay. It is, in my opinion of course, one of the best I have read in some time. It is now on its way to my mailing list.

One of Mr. Brignell's comments that resonated most strongly for me (as I have written about the signal to noise ratio problem here at SDA many times) was: "One of the most valuable ideas of modern engineering, lost in the noise, has been lost in the noise."

And, not to put too fine a point on it, when it comes to the thrust and substance of Mr. Brignell's essay, I think that getting into a fight between the theists and the atheists is just adding to the noise, not the signal. But what do I know, I'm just an a-deist. I think atheism is a kind of theism. And frankly, I think science is a kind of theism (note to self - run for the hills).

The point, it seems to me, is about axiology, colloquially known as value. The practice of science, whatever it be, has brought us the greatest and most important advancements in the history of man. That practice is based on skepticism, empiricism, and falsifiability.

The practice of religion, whatever it be, is not based on skepticism, empiricism, and falsifiability, and therefore, to the extent (and only to the extent) that it is misused for fraudulent purposes, it threatens the greatest and most important advancements in the history of man.

It is on that basis that I now consider the debate over the environment to no longer (at least for now) be about science. It is about the relationship between an at least quasi-religious organizational sub-system force and the institutions of politics and state.

That is, of course, not good news. However, as is my nature, I'll close with an optimistic comment. It's one thing for a religion to claim the domain of the unknowable, but the environment isn't unknowable. Indeed, in 10 or 20 or 50 years we will known exactly what the environment will be like in 10 or 20 or 50 years.

So, ultimately, real science will triumph, because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It's the same reason that in the long run free markets have always eventually triumphed over central planning. It's in the eating of the pudding.

The open question is: now many millions will suffer and/or die unjustifiably as the long-term human social systems work out the details of responding effectively to the latest assault on progress by those who would be our hypocrical overlords. But it's always that way, isn't it?

Over hill, over dale...

I confess blind faith in scientific scepticism, or at least blind faith in the principle of induction, that is, based on track record to date and the state of general knowledge, scientific scepticism appears to be the best prospect we currently have for improving our world. Until Santa Clause starts leaving new treatments for cancer under the tree, I'll park my faith in scientific scepticism.

Vitruvius, you miss the point. Brignell's piece is flawed to the core, stemming from its misanalysis of faith. Scientists have faith as much as theists. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called it the Soldier's Faith. No one can act without implicit faith of some sort.

What Brignell obscures is the more straightforward fact that environmentalists are abusing science for political purposes. The political purposes serve various aims, depending on the environmentalist in question.

SCIENCE IS NOT IN CRISIS. Scientists do stupid things all the time, they always have. Furthermore, junk science dies on the vine because it cannot predict the future, or account for the observations that other scientists make.

In this sense, the failures of science (which are myriad) are self-correcting. The science of climate change that is still around in 50 years will have thrown all the global warming stuff out because it was incorrect, could not predict the future, and could not account for many new observations.

THE PROBLEM is purely economic. In 50 years, the world's governments will have wasted trillions of dollars on a dumb idea, that is transparently dumb, even now.

Vitruvius: You have a very large brain!

Not really my forte but being a natural atheist (but a very tolerant one -- whatever gets you through the night, I say, as long as you leave me alone!) I don't feel I have to prove there ISN'T a God. But I'll be keen to look at the proof of the existence of a God: except, if there's a plane crash where 299 people are killed and one little baby survives, I won't accept that as proof, nor do I consider gaps in the science of evolution proof either as the Godless Anne Coulter tried to argue (which ruined her otherwise excellent book).

That said, I had to set aside Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" because I found his tone a bit too snotty for my taste. Having now finished Ibn Warrag's brilliant "Why I'm Not a Muslim" (modelled after Russel's "Why I am Not a Christian") I think I'll go back to the snotty Dawkins and finish him.

Finally, I'm cynical enough not to believe, like Hitchens, that religion = mass murder as the commies proved with their 100M victims in the 20th century.

Ok, let's see. I agree, Me No Dhimmi, that Dawkins and Hitchens, though they are both brilliant and sometimes witty men, are incorrect in the sense that they don't assign sufficient value to the normative human experience. I have that problem too, but (and pardon me for possibly sounding self-aggrandizing), I see that as my flaw. There is at least a degree to which I'm skeptical of them because I'm not convinced that they don't see their misbehaviour as their market. Ahh, the media market. Caveat emptor, eh what?

I do think that the dangers we face, as humans work though this fiasco, are, as you say DemocracyRules, largely economic (as Mr. Lomborg pointed out oh so long ago now), yet we should not forget that some economic problems translate into real suffering and death.

Let's see, next, I doubt that I miss the point, Murray, since I agree with you, so if I miss the point, that means you miss the point, and as I just mentioned, I don't think you do ;-)

Except for one thing. I don't think Mr. Brignell's essay is "flawed to the core", though I acknowledge that there are limitations to the perspective he takes in his essay, as there are to any perspective one may take, including mine in this comment.

I just think that net net, considering the limitations inherent in any such presentation, Mr. Brignell's is an excellent essay. Mr. Brignell nails the orthogonality of science and religion. Now go back to Pope Benedict's most excellent Regensburg lecture[1]. He expounded at some length on how religion and science are founded on different basis vectors, so though they are both vector effects, they have degrees of orthogonality.

I consider the vector space in which religion and science exist to be the faith vector space, or if you prefer, the hope vector space. I consider the axiological metrics against which various vectors with various degrees of orthogonality (such as religion and science) are to be measured are the classic notions of human good.

It is in that sense that I think that the fraudulent mis-use of environmental science by the enviro-mentalist (at least quasi)-religion is a threat not just to science, but to humanity at large.

To be clear: I am not slagging religion per se. Anything one can label has its pros and its cons. My point is that bad enviro-religion is threatening both the bounties of science, and good-faith hope-based religion, all in the name of dubious players and shady characters. That's the risk I see.

I don't think we should be wasting our time flagellating ourselves, as the enviro-mentalists seem wont to do, when we've still got 93% of the 21st-century improvement problem unsolved.

[1] sagaciousiconoclast.blogspot.com/2006/09/pope-benedicts-regensburg-lecture.html#2

Me No Dhimmi:

You and I would get along well in our views.

Atheism has actually gone through several definition changes over the ages (check it out on Wikipedia) and, at one time, it could have been called a religious belief of its own. But, not by the colloquial definition accepted today.

Most recently, atheists have been the ones known to rely on science in the science-versus-religion argument. When someone tried to assert a "fact" based on religion, the counter was for the other side to invoke the name of science. No matter where your views fell, at least one could say that religion (faith) had some balance given to it by science.

The problem now, of course, is that science (or more properly, the name of "science") is being used to push a religion. That is the problem here.

I really recommend people read the transcript of Michael Crichton's speech "Environmentalism as Religion" at 3w.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html.

It's the sixth one down in the list on that page.

The word atheist was coined by religious people. It is not what non-believers would otherwise call themselves. Probably, they would say merely "I am not superstitious."

Murray wrote:

"A-theism is just as much a faith as theism? Get real. Atheism is skepticism pure and simple"

No sir. That would be agnosticism. An atheistic world view posits that there is no God and then develops ethics accordingly. Am I wrong?

But, obviously, since there is no (scientific) evidence, to posit that there is no God requires the same faith as anyone who posits that there is a God. To suggest that your atheism is somehow superior to my theism defies logic.

I ask you this. What is logical difference between the following two statements?

"I don't believe in God, therefore this is no God."

AND

"God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore there are no atheists."

Brad in Waterloo:

since there is no (scientific) evidence, to posit that there is no God requires the same faith as anyone who posits that there is a God

Dude...you have a bit of a problem with logical fallacies.

In science - as with in anything else, you cannot prove a negative. No one can prove that Santa Claus does NOT exist...you can only show that it is unlikely given his supposed habits and the fact the evidence doesn't mesh with what we can prove.

If I offer you a million dollars if you can prove that elephants exist (a positive assertion), you just have to go and get one. But, if I instead challenge you to prove that pink elephant do NOT exist (a negative assertion), you're stumped. That's how religion works.

Similarly, if I tell you that I am 100% sure that the Earth will be destroyed by a meteorite in 100 years unless you and everyone else gives me your life-savings so that I can build a machine to stop it, you are quite justified in saying, "Show me proof, first." And if I reply by saying, "Prove to me that it won't happen", you will, quite justifiably, pass me off as a nut.

This is the case with global warming. We are being told that some sort of doomsday is coming because of human activity (a positive assertion). Skeptics say, "Prove that it is warming, that it is our fault, and that anything can be done by us to mitigate it." This is a reasonable position to take. Sure, if we could prove that the Earth was actually cooling, or that the warming had another provable cause, or that the progress was unstoppable, we could end the argument there. But, the problem is, because it can't be proven, it has become a matter of faith.

A side comment about atheism:

Strictly speaking, atheism isn't a belief, it's the absence of a specific kind of belief. But, strictly speaking, a "UFO" is an observed object that is impossible to classify as anything definite at the time it was observed.

Look at what's been done with the latter term: it contains a real hint as to what often has happened to the former. There's something in the human brain that seems to choke on a concept whose referent is a set rather than an object.

Brignell has stretched an analogy well past its elastic limits, in a misguided attempt to impute guilt by association. He misrepresents the historical record regarding the development of an empirically prescriptive ethos, which is at core the hard definition of "science", by blending it with philosophical positions that themselves were reactionary developments to the fragmentation of religious hierarchicalism and the individualization of belief. He fails to make the distinction between religion and superstition, likely because he does not see a difference between the two. He misrepresents Christianity, thinly disguised as "older religion", by attributing to it ludicrous theological positions (it is NOT about sex). Time constraints forbid my more thoroughly critiquing his scribblings, which are not without some redeeming features - his diagnostic attempts and symptomatic descriptions do bear some congruence with reality. It is his causal analysis that is dreck.

Brignell can call Karl Popper a "sceptic" but this is deficient...Popper perfected the rational equation to produce simple truths through elimination call it "critical rationalization"...unlike the hegelian dialectic, his reasoning is multi dimensional but always grounded in known facts leading to more soon to be known fact.

I agree that politics (which relies on the simplistic Hegelian dialectic to infect logic with myth trough synthesis) has infected scientific reason...science has consequently become hysteric, manipulative, deceptive, agenda driven and a number of other foibles asimilated through political "synthesis" of the scientific discipline.

Brignell is correct in calling the great proponets of methodical reason "sceptics" but it is an over simplification as their disciplines of deductive reasoning are far advanced to the fallible simplistic processes used in today's "pop" science.

It is I think unfortunate that when it is pointed out that some organization X is abusing the human experiences of faith and religion, whatever they may be, that some people who identify with some religion Y argue as if the criticism of X is some how a priori a criticism of Y.

The point of Mr. Brignell's essay is, in my opinion, not an indictment of faith, it is an indictment of the abuse of faith and her products in the name of fraudulently self-serving enviro-mentalists.

It's a good thing we don't pray to pink elephants.

So if God answers your prayer, does that make the answer falsifiable?

Further if one has an interior 'religious experience' as God reveals himself to you, is your experience falsifiable?

But of course if one wanted absolute certainty then it would not be called "faith".

What happens when politicians act in 'bad faith'?

Vitruvius re: Hitchens, Dawkins:
There is at least a degree to which I'm skeptical of them because I'm not convinced that they don't see their misbehaviour as their market.
Yes, exactly. Hitchens is one very bad boy, former Trotskyite and all (still can't figure out how he could have been one past, say, age 23). And that voice!

Jim Petit said:
The word atheist was coined by religious people. It is not what non-believers would otherwise call themselves. Probably, they would say merely "I am not superstitious."
Indeed. And as I always say (to myself mostly) we will be fully civilized when all office buildings have 13th floors, eh?

I think one of the traps of religiosity is the notion that there would have been no morality without Religion. Myself -- I think the basis of morality is really self interest, i.e., the golden rule.

And the spelling above should have been Ibn Warraq (not g) and what a great book it is!

One point that broke me up: Why does God reveal to a single guy out in the wilderness or in a cave like Mo? Why not before 10s of 1000s like say at a football stadium? A lot more efficient!

"Why does God reveal to a single guy out in the wilderness or in a cave like Mo? Why not before 10s of 1000s like say at a football stadium? A lot more efficient!"

This is a stupid Islamocentric comment. There is a religion whose adherents claim that such mass revelations were done - Christianity.

wlmr - I strongly agree with your rejection of Hegel and opting for Popper. I'm a fan of Charles S. Peirce- far more complex than Popper - and Popper was indebted to Peirce.

Agree with bryceman's - very nice argument; right - you can't prove a negative. Basic logic and basic Aristotle. And basic common sense.

I'm an atheist; I don't care about the semantics; Essentially, I don't believe in a metaphysical agential force to the universe. Nothing to do with faith, but, as Peirce/Aristotle said, you can't start with nothing; you have to begin your analysis with some axioms.

I certainly don't think the complexity of our universe is random; I think it's self-organized.
It is certainly organized...

Brignell's essay - very nice. Religion is based on a knowledge base that is not open to doubt; scientific knowledge must be open to doubt or it isn't scientific knowledge. Simple as that, I think.

Agree with vitruvius, safe up in his hills, that many lives will be lost within the non-science of political environmentalism - just as they are being lost in the fight to retain tribalism in the ME - long, long past its time-for-death. Both ideologies are faith-based, abandoning reason and empirical observation.

vitruvius-up-in-the-hills, take a good look at alpine plants (my favourite type); they are exquisite, complex adaptors.

Just to set things straight on atheism. Atheism is not a belief, it is a philosophical position as to the existance of gods. Just as theism is.

And, just as there are many theist "philosophies" there are many atheist philosophies. So let's cut the crap about ahteism being a belief or religion. It is essentially a position of no-belief. And, frankly, the necessary starting point for philosophy.

WOW !! Amazing article Kate.

If it would have been required reading for all the world's newspaper editors ten years ago, Kyoto would have never got off the ground :)

Who can seriously argue with that reasoned piece ??

To Vitruvius (June 13, 2007 6:33 PM): Bravo!

Excellent article. My fear is that leftist/environmentalists may succede in suppressing science by simply defining it away i.e. they will co-opt the term "science" to mean anything but the scientific method as we understand it in the same way they co-opted the terms "peace" to mean world communism and "exploitation" to mean any free market transaction or "democracy" to mean authoritarian oppression. Presenting Al Gore's lunatic ravings in science classes while intimidating sceptics i.e. those respecting the true scientific method is an indoctrinational (is that actually a word?) device currently being used on our children. Heaven help us if it succedes.

Regarding intolerant Atheists.

I have been Atheist since age 14. At that age I found I could not believe in supernatural phenomena. I reasoned that we cannot defy gravity, cannot be invisible, cannot travel in time and Santa cannot hit every house in a 12 hour period.

In my case I call the A in Atheist Ambivalence. I don't spend much time dwelling on that theory. I do not believe that any supernatural being created the universe as a backdrop for the likes of us. How the universe came to be is simply something that is beyond my comprehension and I can live with that mystery.

I also don't believe the begging on bended knee is going to prod any Supernatural creator into being kinder to Africa, nor that I will win the next lottery. Actually I am cursed with only believing in things that can be proved. If anyone can prove I am wrong, I will keep an open mind. Meanwhile, call me a skeptic ... or an Atheist.

So far as morality is concerned, I use common sense and logic to guild me. It is illogical to be a despot. Life is much more pleasant, orderly and potentially prosperous when everyone is well behaved and exercising control over their potential demons. This state of being does not require faith nor a belief, nor a threat by a clergyman. It is merely a logical conclusion that I cannot ignore.

I am not intolerant of people who embrace religion if it is of the Christian variety where love and kindness is at the root of it. In that case, we have more in common than not. I see those folks as being perhaps too lazy to use their facalties to arrive at similar conclusions and have take religion as a shortcut or social aid to get them to a place where they can relax and feel a bit more secure in their life.

I am intolerant of Islam which so far has proved to be the opposite. I am also not tolerant of hard core Christians who want to sell me their brand of morality anymore than I am tolerant of a telemarketer trying to get me to mortgage the equity in my home to take that dream vacation I so richly deserve.

One thing I do believe, is that those who don't wish to embrace a belief in the supernatural can co exist with those who do. But that will require some logic on both sides.

Regarding Socialism/Communism, that has proved to be a failed system in more than one case. The evidence is all around in Eastern Europe, Russia, Cuba and China (who has already embraced capitalism of a sort to bail themselves out.). Anyone who still believes it is the right path to Utopia is indeed a denier or perhaps and A-Capitalist.

Finally, UFOs is not supernatural phenomena. If they do exist, they may simply be from a far more technologically advanced society who likely are too afraid of us to land. That is yet to be proved I understand that. I will wait.

IMO, this is the jist of of it all;

[ It is part of human nature that we do not like to admit making a mistake, even to ourselves. So if, for example, we buy a magic device that by some mysterious means improves the fuel efficiency of our car, we drive a little more conservatively in order to prove that we have not been had. Religions exploit this weakness as a means creating and reinforcing commitment. If someone can be induced or coerced into making a sacrifice they then have a stake in the cause. ]

A stake in their career. And pension too !!

The whole key in the Kyoto Kultism was to get the media onside early and quickly to help indoctrinate as many as possible.

If the belief can survive ten or twenty years enough will be "stake holders" who will not give it up easily. Even after they do not "believe" anymore.

It is bad enough to Gore and Suzuki and Dion that they have been had. It would be one thing if they could just wimper away. But if they admit they have been had how would they deal with the anger of their millions of followers ??

******I certainly don't think the complexity of our universe is random; I think it's self-organized.***********

the key ingredient here is "time", chaos will unravel and show patterns (organize) given enough time

Murray, science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of God. A scientifically sceptical person who declares himself to be an atheist is at odds with himself, and I say that as one who leans heavily in that direction.

Ever since the dawn of mankind there has always been beliefs. And there have always been thoses that will take advantage of the believers.

As Patric Moore said, the best scams are those that are hardest to disprove. At least initially.

They also happen to make the best articles with which to sell dead trees.

And to think Hollywood gave Gore an Oscar !!

Not worth the plastic it is made of.

[ One of the most exploited ways of angling the news is by “ratchet reporting”. News of unusual warm weather, for example, is given copious coverage, while cold weather is studiously ignored. ]

Is this legal ??

Belief in God does not equal to superstition. Superstition comes in when someone believes that God is going to do things for him. That is where religion took off in another direction.
Descartes’ conclusion, contrary to popular belief was that ‘it exist because it thinks’ that would be mind. Now just think for a moment, the spark of thought, it is there, but where. The Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel painting where God talks to Adam, the gap between their fingers illustrates this very good.
That is not a physical activity, though some would say that it is an electro/chemical kind of process. Think of music that you like, you can’t touch it, you can’ see it, you can’t smell it, though it is there and it gives you pleasure, this is purely spiritual thing.
Anyway so far as GW situation, an accurate description is, as in Brignell’s article, ‘might or might not’.

It is not possible to characterize the method of St. Thomas by one word, unless it can be called eclectic. It is Aristotelean, Platonic, and Socratic; it is inductive and deductive; it is analytic and synthetic. He chose the best that could he found in those who preceded him, carefully sifting the chaff from the wheat, approving what was true, rejecting the false. His powers of synthesis were extraordinary. No writer surpassed him in the faculty of expressing in a few well-chosen words the truth gathered from a multitude of varying and conflicting opinions; and in almost every instance the student sees the truth and is perfectly satisfied with St. Thomas's summary and statement. Not that he would have students swear by the words of a master. In philosophy, he says, arguments from authority are of secondary importance; philosophy does not consist in knowing what men have said, but in knowing the truth (In I lib. de Coelo, lect. xxii; II Sent., D. xiv, a. 2, ad 1um).

[ That the media know that they are peddling untruths is demonstrated by these tricks they get up to. If they were confident of the truth of their case there would be no need to fake the coverage. They have been frequently caught out faking their numbers and graphs, but only a few internet surfers know about it. If you think you have a good case, you can afford to present both sides, but they don’t. The great majority of the population have no idea that there is an alternative view. That is not science, it is religion. ]

".... only a few internet surfers know (the truth)"

The ones at sda certainly do !!

[ Religion has always played an important part in the imposition of authority. For many centuries it took the form of the “Divine Right of Kings” or the “Mandate of Heaven”. Once you get the people to believe, you can get away with almost any imposition. ]

Before the masses knew what a phenomena (natural) called an eclipse of the sun was, the religious leaders used it to their advantage;

REPENT !! 'Or tomorrow the gods will turn off the sun.'

Can you imagine the fear !!??

[ As the Jesuits say “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.” ]

Sounds like Gore in our public school system.

Their still trying to cm we came from apes and all they can show is some fake models and a few bone fragments and when they thought that PILTDOWN MAN was the missing link and when they came up with a model claiming birds came from dinosoars and it turned out to be a fake now their claiming we are related to chimps what a load of bull kaka i mean that wacko CARL SAGAN said that EVOLUTION IS A PROVEN FACT. WHAT A LIAR.Sagan is no longer with us becuase he sailed his goofy sea urchin shaped starship IMAGINATION into the ROLUMAN NUETRAL ZONE and the vaporized him with the PLASMA WEAPON, KABOOM

The alternative to not believing in God is believing the universe, and everything in it, self-assembled from nothing.

Now >i>that's faith.

This self- post time over bett assembled. er

The above post is self-assembled. Given enough time, it will become a marvelously coherent, self-assembled post.

With any luck, the brains of anyone reading it will have self-assembled sufficiently to make sense of this immaterial communication from one mind to another.

What an amazing universe we atheists inhabit --

matter from nothing

uncaused organization

consciousness from non-consciousness

thought from non-thought

conscience from non-conscience

logic from nothing

reason from nothing

love from nothing

Move along, folks. There's nothing to see. There's NOTHING out there.

We're staking our lives on it.

Slightly off-topic, but still has some relevance.

I am a diabetic. I was prescribed three different medications to control my blood sugar. About a month ago, I read an article referring to "low carb diets" - no bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, etc. I switched to it, and found my blood sugar, which had been running at twice normal levels despite all the medication, dropped to normal. (As a side benefit, I've lost almost 20 lbs!)

But, despite numerous studies showing the effectiveness of these diets in lowering blood sugar, bad cholesterol, and losing weight, the official position of the Canadian Diabetic Association (and the US equivalent, the ADA) is that we should be eating 6-7 servings a day of what I now call "brown food".

Apparently, these associations have become so wedded to their position, they can't change them despite all the evidence. That's hardly what I call "scientific". With diabetes affecting 10% of all Canadians - and the rate is rising - how many people will suffer the complications, such as blindness, amputation, and death? And, perhaps more to the point, how much strain will this put on our medical system? I think these assocations are being completely irresponsible by ignoring the benefits of low carb diets.

BTW, I have discontinued two of the medications, and cut the third in half while still keeping the sugars in the normal range.

One (possibly inapplicable, help me out here, philosophers and mathematicians) implication of Gödel's incompleteness theorem is that in an axiomatic internally consistent description of the universe (such as the scientific method) there can exist a truth that is non-provable. That is, something may be true but not provable via the scientific method; indeed, the very definition of "faith" requires this non-provability. Such truths of necessity lie outside the realm of science. So, those atheists or agnostics who demand proof of the existence of God are basically demanding a paradox, proof of the unprovable.

"The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a "The science is settled" when real scientists know that science is never settled."

He's got that one nailed.

Ever hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac: He stayed up all night wondering if there is a dog.

To me, science is our way of understanding the universe, of approximating its behaviour using mathematical equations. Religion, on the other hand, is way of answering, why on earth am I here?

Faith can fill in the gap, such as an unseen God, or the inability of science to explain how nothing (a vacuum) was transformed into matter, given our linear mode of beginning and end. Science says energy is neither created nor destroyed, (merely converted to another form) for instance, but can't, right now, explain how matter always was, which is a necessary condition for contemporary science.

Religion and faith aren't for everyone, and we should never confuse dogma for science, as the Kyoto cultists seem determined to do.

I know it's late; I'm just an insomniac, though.

Spike, until you know of what you speak, your jaws should not be moving. Athiests have "absolute intolerance with other beliefs"? Give it a rest. And do not even begin to compare me with a Muslim or communist. Carry on little troll.

So it's settled then? We all agree that there is a God and that she is a confirmed atheist and regular reader of SDA?

The proposition that science somehow has an inherent tension against or counter to a religious outlook is patently false.

Science attempts to answer the question of how things connect in the the natural world.

Religion attempts to answer the the who or why of existence/being.

These are two different questions which are not necessarily contradictory.

One can understand the mechanics of mathematics or physics but this doesn't of necessity bar holding a faith based view of one's world.

One can hold a philosophy of science position quite comfortably with a faith based view on one's existence or place in the world.

Is is an artifice of post modernist thinking to remove God. It may be a starting axiom for some, but nothing says that this axiom may or may not be true on its own merits.

One may posit the existence of subatomic particles such as gluons to explain the structure and behaviour of the physical universe in a mathematical way.

The scientist then may begin the hunt for gluons.

Einstein may have been uncomfortable with the notion of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but it introduces free will in the human construct and leads away from a strict mechanistic determinism.

Similarly, one may posit the existence of God to explain in an ontological way the reason/meaning for one's existence/being.

The theist then may begin the hunt for God.

Science and theism are not antagonistic but can be quite complementary views on nature and existence.
It is the popular press that likes to present this as a tension because as usual controversy sells.

Cheers

:)

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Now that is a great read....

JCL

Where do you think all those asteroids come from their used in gods marble game

Actually, no, ol hoss. You are thinking in a linear and mechanical fashion - ie, that 'something' was created from 'nothing' is linear, setting up a 'before something'. That is linear Newtonian time. What if there are other forms of time that are non-linear?

Also, you are thinking in a mechanical mode of X and not-X, or 'something' and 'no-thing'. Again, a complex system doesn't operate in such a binary mode. Furthermore, you are thinking that 'something' has a material morphology. What if it's pure energy, above the speed of light? Remember, below the speed of light, energy exists as matter.

It is called the 'Big Bang'.

[ There is no fundamental clash between faith and science – they do not intersect. The difficulties arise, however, when one pretends to be the other. ]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the above is the main reason for Kate's post.

Think Gore and Suzuki and Maurice Strong.

Thank you Richard Ball you nailed it perfectly and in few words. My husband has a favorite saying,"educated into imbecility",I love that term and find it very relevant to many people.

bryceman, Murray,

That you can't prove a negative is exactly wrong. Testing the negative is the basis of the scientific method. In science, you don't prove your hypothesis directly, you disprove the null hypothesis. You are proving the negative. You must eliminate all competing (reasonable) explanations for your observations through verifiable testing. Otherwise you don't have a scientific fact, you have a theory. That is why the vast majority of science is theory.

With religion, I can say that I don't THINK that there is a god (which is a claim of disbelief, not fact.) I can say with more conviction that the god as described in the Christian bible doesn't exist based on contradictions and logic. I can say that I will go through life with the assumption that there is no god.

But I can't say there is no god of any sort. Only someone who claims what they can't possibly know is an absolute atheist.

Unless you can prove something, that something remains a theory. Any claim beyond that is arrogance and hubris.

How do we know that the mechanisms in science aren't some unknown god's own experiment and that the universe we observe is not his Petri dish? We don't and we can't.

Agnostism is scepticism, atheism is faith that you KNOW what you can't. Atheism is hubris in the same way you find in all the other isms and religions.

I think the difference between theism, atheism, secular isms like the greens versus the scientific method is that science posits that anything is possible until proven otherwise and nothing is true until proven. If you can't observe something, you can't eliminate it. The scientist proves something by rejecting the Null hypothesis. You prove the negative.

A more valid claim is to say that I am an agnostic who is as near an atheist as you are logically able to claim.

Settled Science as Pay-Per-View Entertainment:

Pretend Scientist:
"I have this tent. I have these bottles of snake oil. I have a graph that shows the earth is getting warmer. You are causing it. I call it 'settled science'. I will save you. Give me your money."

Real Scientist:
"I call BS. Go back in your tent. Take your graph and lubricate it with some snake oil. Shove it up your butt. Warning: it may feel a bit 'unsettling'. But, I'll pay to watch you do it."

:-)

Religion is for suckers, I agree.

However, Bagnell seems to forget one thing - the fact that if the world is heating up because of human induced emissions, then we have to act now to save ourselves. As much as I know the world is heating up, I understand that some of you would rather not "believe" it.

However, if it turns out the scientists are right, and that the world IS heating up, and the Ice Caps ARE melting, and the subsequent global catastrophe will destroy our planet, what will you say?

Whoops?

How could we have known?

It's not our fault?

In the Arctic the changes are already happening. Anyone can learn about them, even some of the morons who come here and blindly resist the "we've gotta do something about climate change and carbon emissions now!" movement. Even Kate can learn about them.

Patrick Moore is right.

Kate posts the best 'ties-it-all-together' piece I have every seen. And the thread breaks down into 'my god, your god -- he said, she said' bickering.

Why ?? Simple. As Patrick said, the best story is one that is hard to prove either way. At least initially. The Kyoto Kult knew this.

warwick - I'll quibble with you. I don't think that you can 'prove' a negative - and the null hypothesis isn't about proving a negative.

The null hypothesis is a situation where you set up a hypothesis, which you accept as valid!! but your real agenda is to nullify or disprove that hypothesis by searching out another hypothesis.

So, I can set up a situation where I state that 'Witches do not cause disease'. I'll accept this as valid and start to explore other hypotheses about causes of disease - such as germs, genetics, pollutants, etc..which will weaken the validity of my original witch hypothesis.

But, I don't think that i can prove that witches do not cause disease. I can just find more reliable causes...

I don't think that most science is theory; it is facts based within theories. Theory without facts is hypothetical; and facts without theories are random.

Agree - there is no proof that there is no god and it can't be proven. Same with the opposite; there's no proof that there IS a god, and it can't be proven. It's a choice to believe/not believe in a god (at least, thank goodness, it's a choice in our society).

As for the semantics of atheism vs agnosticism, i frankly don't give a damn; I define myself as an atheist; I don't believe in god. Nothing to do with faith, but a choice to believe/not believe. The agnostic is focusing on themselves as incapable of knowing whether or not there is a god - hence your claim that the atheist, with his certainty, has 'hubris'. My view is that it has nothing to do with my ability to know whether or not there is a god, but my choice to reject the existence of a metaphysical agent. Is that hubris? I don't think so.

Again, the null hypothesis is not about proving the negative - that's impossible.

Throbbin,

Leave to a leftard to entirely miss every. single. point.

Congrats, you have proven yourself less intellegent than an illiterate halfwit with tourette's.

ET,

In your hypothesis that "witches do not cause desease," your null hypothosis would be that "witches DO cause desease." You would then disprove your null hypothesis. In effect, you have to prove that something is not inorder to prove that the alternative is. You are proving the negative when you disprove the positive.

I didn't say there were NO facts in science. I said that a lot of what is in science is not fully proven as fact as it is not possible to prove one way or another until more knowledge is available. If we knew the factual basis of all of science, you'd hardly need to do any more of it, would you? Most of science is highly probably but subject to revision or completion. That isn't to say its wrong, just that it isn't finished.

Warwick, I understand what Bagnell was trying to say - as another attempt to soothe the climate change deniers.

His rant is so laden with convoluted, contradictory, stupid assertions that I won't even address it, you guys have fun though.

Theres a reason most people in the world understand that Human induced climate change is a reality.

And don't try to think of yourselves as the minority vanguard of truth and the scientific process, under siege by the mindless enviro-dhimmi-surrender-monkey-communists. You may pat each other on the back, but the world is laughing at you.

John Brignell is a moron to boot - he doesn't actually believe that 2nd hand smoke causes lung cancer, and actually fought the EPA over it. Sounds like another Fred Singer to me.

5 minutes on Google, and you can find out just what kind of person Bignell is - like I said, you guys enjoy your champions, they are becoming increasingly rare and illegitimate.

Oh BTW - nice website Warwick. Did you create that website just to have your name underlined and hyperlinked in SDA? For some reason, I wouldn't put it beneath you.

the problem, throbbin, with your rant, is that it is a rant. Not a word that is factual, that is grounded in evidence. Indeed, you reject providing us with any evidence, claiming that we should just accept your words as valid.

Why is that? Why should we accept your assertions without evidence that Bagnell is wrong; that the 'world is laughing'; and even, that AGW is a 'reality'.

Just five minutes on google, throbbin, and you'll find out how ignorant your rant is. You see, the point of the scientific method is to work within facts, not rants.

Throbbin,

Nice. "your agurment is stupid because i say so and therefore I refuse to refute" Try that one in school.

I reiterate my original observation about your literacy intellegence and illness. You're a twit.

My website is no longer. I see the name has been usurped by squatters, though. Must be a google thing.

Oh boy...

I did not want to get into this because it is becoming so asinine. But, since ET jumped in and Warwick is still flinching, I will address it simply.

ET is right in his analysis of null hypothesis. Warwick is wrong. You don't create a null hypothesis by simply adding or removing the word "NOT". You create a negative hypothesis by inserting the word not. It is those things that cannot be proven.

Futhermore, the assertion that witches do indeed cause disease can be proven if there is proof to be had. The assertion that witches do NOT cause disease cannot be established...specifically because you cannot prove that witches don't exist or that they don't transmit disease. You've got a double negative problem there.

Again, if I could produce a witch and show that she had a disease and then take a healthy person and show that that healthy person gets the disease the witch is carrying, I win.

But, if the challenge is to prove the "not" version, I have nowhere to go - except (as I and ET have said earlier) to show that it is unlikely by producing volumes of evidence of other causes.

It's that simple.

Throbbin,

Brignell backs up everything he claims with facts that are not disputable (and have never been disputed). That's why folks such as yourself are forced to resort to silly little "attacks" like...

John Brignell is a moron to boot - he doesn't actually believe that 2nd hand smoke causes lung cancer, and actually fought the EPA over it.

In your mind, you think that that is actually an successful "hit" against Brignell. It is not. In Galileo's time, the masses of ignorance thought that they could score hits against him by saying, "Galileo is a moron to boot - he doesn't actually believe that the Earth is the centre of the Universe." Of course, people like them (and you) don't live long enough to see who becomes the real laughing stock after many years of history have passed and the hysteria has calmed.

I have read Brignell's analysis of the EPA report on second-hand smoke. I have also read the original EPA report and the US Federal Court Judge's decision which declared that the EPA had in fact faked their evidence and declared the study null and void. It is all a validation of Brignell's argument.

Have you read these things? If you were to read them, are you educated enough to know how to analyze them? Do you know how epidemiology works? Can you read - or is your facilitator helping you out with this?

My guess is that you are angry because people are claiming that the facts don't match with your religion. You can't take down your opponents argument with science and facts, so you have nothing but the appeal-to-authority trick. This essentially comes down to "My priest says it is so, so you guys stop poking holes in the argument or I'll throw a hissy fit."

It is very easy to find 10-15 world leading climatology experts who have continued to maintain that there is nothing about the global warming theory to get up in arms about. You can't name one who says otherwise. You can only make vague references to "consensus of scientists" where the so-called "scientist" may be a lab assistant to the fruit-fly guy.

But, there is no point in trying to waste time convincing true-believers of the facts. They are not interested in the facts...only in pushing their religion further.

You have a right to your religion. I don't want to talk you out of it. But, I am getting concerned that, like all up-start religions of the past, you people are worked up into a frenzy where you now want to force your religious beliefs on me. Instead of offering the collection plate, you want me to pay a dhimmi tax. That's something I'm not willing to do.

Brignell and his kind are not trying to take down your god (Gaia is the name I think). We just want to be left alone and allowed to not believe.

bryceman, bang-on !!

Kyoto Kult "green taxes" would be no more than a religion type collection plate.

Amazing, the quality of commenters here at sda.

The Globe's ?? Seems that most are just fresh U students parroting the hippy prof :)

Huxley was the one who drew those fake embryos showing those dumb tails and gill slits on them and NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC is still showing those fake embryos

I could spend the 1/2 hour countering the "Kyoto as a religion" thing, but I don't have the time nor the inclination. People are still laughing at you.

I could read the EPA report, could probably analyze it fairly well, but I have better things to do.

Climate Change deniers are becoming increasingly desperate (What - you want to cut carbon emissions and kill all plant life on earth?), and becoming more and more extreme wanting to hold on to their views.

Oh, and my God "Gaiea"? Sorry, nope. Just want tomake sure my grandchildren have a habitable planet when they are my age. Sorry of that bothers you.

throbbin- until you actually do something,i.e., specifically support your allegations, rather than inform us that you 'could' if you 'felt like it', the reality is (and you insist you care about reality)... that you aren't doing anything other than spouting pompous hogwash.

It's childish, and arrogant, to state that you 'could' refute something, that you 'could' analyze something, that you 'could' do whatever...but you just 'don't feel like it'.

By the way, no one doubts climate change; what is doubted and rejected, is that it is caused primarily by human beings. So, stop with the juvenile name-calling ('deniers').

Again -

Either put up - or shut up.

Are you guessing betweens rows, or choosing between columns?

http://break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Check it out. This about sums it up.

Throbbin: simple question, still unanswered by the proponents of Kyoto despite my posing it so many times (so you can be first): according to the IPCC scientific reports, did the Little Ice Age occur or not occur? I await your referenced response.

OK Throbbin:

I watched the video - beginning to end. I have two responses to it...

One:
An important rule for anyone debating social or economic policy (and it doesn't matter if you lean right or left): Beware of simplistic answers! Nothing is ever simple...especially when it involves large numbers of people. In this case, we are talking about the entire population of the Earth...it don't get much larger than that.

Watching him reminds me of reading Lenin. In his early papers (before he came to power) Lenin attempted to prove (using mathematics and similar charts) that communism would be far more efficient and productive than capitalism. Reading it, you want to reach back through history, grab him by the lapels, and scream, "But, you're talking about humans, you idiot!" You can't collectively put all humans into a mathematical formula unless all humans are exactly the same - each with the same talents, needs, and desires.

Two:
This guy assumes that the only negative effect of "taking action" on global warming when there is no real threat is that there would be a global economic depression. There are ALWAYS unintended consequences from those actions that seem relatively trivial when you are trying to predict the future.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I recommend taking a look at 3w.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html (the sixth one on the list called "Environmentalism as Religion"). I took a look at what you presented, Throbbin. How about returning the favor?

Pay special attention to where Crichton talks about the ban of DDT. Activists in the 80's claimed that DDT was harmful to people (caused cancer) and birds (damaged their eggs). There was argument...but by using logic must like this guy in the video, it was banned.

Today, we know that DDT has no such negative effects. We also know that about 30 million deaths (mostly children) have been directly attributed to the banning of a chemical that never needed to ban. Even though they now know they were wrong, the UN still won't supply DDT to the poorest countries that have sky-rocketing malaria cases. All countries that can afford it now have to (and do) purchase and use it.

I am sure that, if we took the point-of-view of this guy in the video before we banned DDT, his argument would have sounded as reasonable to you as his global warming one does. I mean what would have been the worst that the pre-ban DDT opponents would have forseen? Probably just the "cost" factor of using less effective alternatives - just as this guy did.

There is no way that they could have put X number of deaths in the worst case "take-action-but-there's-nothing-to-worry-about-column"...because there is no way they could know the number. And if he had have put "X deaths", everyone would want to know "How many deaths?" Which would stall the argument from moving forward.

What if they had put 30 million deaths (mostly children) in the top left cell? Don't you think the policy makers may have thought differently of it?

The point is that there are always unintended consequences...and even I don't pretend to know what could come out of taking drastic action.

But, think about this. If something that seems relatively benign - like getting the UN to stop providing DDT to nations that can't afford to purchase it themselves - can result in 30 million deaths (a number that no one contests, by the way), then what could the unintended consequences be of taking "drastic action" on a global scale to control how people live and use energy?

If global warming is real, then the controls put on people must be global. That means a central power controlling (with the ability to enforce) energy policy around the world.

The thought of a world governing body (one with unelected elites) deciding what each individual can and cannot do in a day is among the scariest things I can think of. Everything a human might do from eating meat (thus supporting meat farmers who farm animals that fart and, thus contribute to "climate change") to smoking (which I now understand contributes to "climate change") would be under the power of this new world order.

I don't think you have to be a genius to foresee that the worst possible consequences would be a hell of a lot worse than simple "cost".

That, Throbbin, is the reason that I and those like me say that we had better be 100% sure before we can get behind the idea of taking drastic action like that proposed by those who believe in "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever the focus groups have decided it should be called this week.

One more thing...doesn't the fact that so many policy-makers spend so much time working on better ways to package their idea (rather than addressing the issues put forth by men like Richard Lindzen) bother you a little?

I mean, none of the scientist on the "deniers" side ever engages in personal attacks on those who sit on the "consensus" side. Instead they attack the scientific methodology. Why do the "consensus" people never seem to answer back with scientific points to put down them "deniers"? Why do they instead come up with labels like "deniers"? Just wondering.

Even the Globe & Mail is dumping on Kyoto since it died last week at the G8.

This would have never made it to print before;

[ Global warming good for Canada, Yale study shows
MICHAEL HILL

Associated Press

Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops; Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches; shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific, study suggests.
Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Cities might stop losing snowbirds to the South. ](AP)

And Greenland could become green !! Again !!

Canada's Tim Ball has been making these points for ten years. Our beloved media is only starting to listen.

ET, that's a lot of "if's".

Warwick, if memory serve, you test a hypothesis. In simple terms, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation. Through observation or investigation, you confirm or disprove the hypothesis. A useful hypothesis will enable one to predict outcomes based on reasoning (deductive or inductive). Continued confirmation of a hypothesis can lead to a theory.

Theories, like a hypothesis are testable, it takes many confirmations to make a good theory. One result that denies the theory nullifies its usefulness.

And another thing. To make a case in point about theory and hypothesis, first, the Global Warming Theory states that the troposphere will warm earlier and faster than the surface. Observation tells us otherwise. One strike.

Second, GWT states that temperatures at the poles will increase at a greater rate than the equator. Polar temperature are not warming at a greater rate, the south pole is cooling. Strike two.

GWT implies that temperature change will be global, the southern hemisphere is not warming at the same rate as the northern hemisphere. Strike three.

The theory is broken. Its time to re-evaluate the hypothesis that underlies the theory.

Few people will deny that there is warming but such warming is regionalized. Many scientits will argue the extent of the warming but most agree that it has been, on average, about 0.6 degrees over the past 107 years, motly (80%) between 1900 and 1945 with the remaining 20% in the last 60 years. Oddly, the first 80% in temperature happened with 18% of the obserable CO2 increase.

Doesn't give one a lot of confidence in the theories being bandied about.